Yet another physical confrontation in the legislature has resulted in lawmakers from both the green and blue camps being sent to hospital. The nation's democracy seems to have regressed to resemble the "permanent Assembly" elected in China in the 1940s.
The unreasonably low status of the legislature until a dozen or so years ago meant that lawmakers lacked legitimacy, and that the government and opposition could not discuss issues in a rational manner. The result was violent confrontation each time a major bill was sent to the floor for review.
Although the legislature is now democratically elected and legitimate representation is not in question, constitutional regulations ensure that presidential and executive powers held by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are being balanced by the blue camp's legislative majority. The result is a political process paralyzed by obstruction, slowing government business to a crawl.
But despite the stalemate, the politicians must find a solution.
The 2000 US presidential election and the recent tussle over the German chancellorship were both dealt with according to the law, but in Taiwan the deep animosity between the blue and green camps means that neither wants to take a step back. When a major political conflict occurs in a healthy society, neutral groups can take on the role of arbitrators. But the vicious competition seen in many past national elections, however, means that almost all groups and individuals -- including supposedly neutral academic circles -- have been labeled either green or blue.
Establishing a national communications commission (NCC) is an important part of national media reform. The organization should represent expertise and independence, but the proposed bill is being directed by political concerns. The Cabinet insists that the premier should appoint the commission's members and direct its operations. The blue camp insists that its members should be appointed in proportion to party representation in the legislature, which would give control of the commission to the blue camp.
Neither side is willing to compromise.
The "cross-strait peace advancement" bill, however, is a constitutional disaster zone. The People First Party version of the bill aims to undermine the government and create a committee that can direct cross-strait policy over the head of the executive, bypassing both the Mainland Affairs Council and the Straits Exchange Foundation. This body could negotiate directly with China and would be authorized to sign treaties, playing a decisive role in determining policy over the "three links" and free-trade zones, and even a ceasefire agreement. This completely ignores the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution, and could easily develop into a monster.
The arms-procurement and NCC bills each raise special concerns, and these could be debated publicly. Unfortunately, the blue camp has seen fit to use its legislative majority to block a review of the arms bill.
Every Taiwanese is a partisan in this conflict between the green and blue camps, and as such no one can be found to mediate. There is no one of sufficient stature, no impartial media, and no intellectuals with adequate qualifications and credibility to arbitrate.
When the legislature itself throws out the constitutional principles of legislation, the executive must appeal to the constitutional courts.
Otherwise, the political paralysis will continue, and if the people can't stand the situation any longer, they may well use their power to punish those responsible.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers